I thought that William had been displaying a pretty well rounded maturity since the engagement. But this Christmas behaviour is just plain childish. If he wanted to stay private he should have stayed "in private' instead of venturing into the real world, to a real village, to go to a real church, with real parishioners, attending a real Christmas Day Service and then expect every man and his dog to do a very bad impression of "The Emperor's New Clothes" and pretend he wasn't there.

How utterly bizarre!

__________________

__________________MARG"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes

I asked myself the question last week --- why do I care about this boring 31 year old woman. And the answer was --- I don't.

New Year - Find something better for myself to do!

That's probably a good idea. If someone/something bores you, why waste time on them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommy100

To be honest I think realistically William and Kate are going to get photographed on Christmas day so perhaps they need to accept that and find the best way to accommodate it. Obviously at Sandringham that is taken care of when the royals all go to church. Perhaps if they want to be at the middletons on Christmas day in the future arranging for the media to be allowed in one place and take a few photos might be the best option. Then it can be controlled, the media get pictures for us to see and any taking pictures anywhere else, say at church, would have to have an very good reason for doing so. Maybe a few minutes of pictures of the cambridges walking down the middletons driveway into a car on their way to church.
I know it might sound harsh but I don't think a future king and queen can expect not to be photographed if they step out of the house on Christmas day.

This would be a good arrangement. They would be able to control the photos, while still enjoying a bit of privacy during Christmas with the Middletons.

Are you aware, that according to basic human rights, you own the right of your picture, voice etc.?; Is it because of the Paris Hiltons and Kadashians of this world, because they love every opportunity to be photographed, that it has become common opinion to think, everybody is public property?

The royals are doing a job - on job it is fare game to take fotos; when they are private it is NOT.

That's the difference between celebs, wannabees and royals or other prominent people like politicians, artists etc.

Well, they must be aware of the fact they were in a public place and the media probably would be there, trying to take some pictures. If they wanted something private they should have stayed at home! It's pretty obviously they media would do everything to photograph them moreover know she's pregnant and decided to spend christmas with her family.

I thought that William had been displaying a pretty well rounded maturity since the engagement. But this Christmas behaviour is just plain childish. If he wanted to stay private he should have stayed "in private' instead of venturing into the real world, to a real village, to go to a real church, with real parishioners, attending a real Christmas Day Service and then expect every man and his dog to do a very bad impression of "The Emperor's New Clothes" and pretend he wasn't there.

How utterly bizarre!

Just so I'm clear, your opinion is no one in the royal family has any right to privacy unless they're inside their home?

Because my view of it is, just because someone is in public (church, the grocery store, etc) doesn't make it a 'public appearance.'

There is freedom of the press in Britain and the press can publish whatever they like, the Palace made a request and the press complied but they didn't have to

If the press in Britain don't want to have boundaries with the Royal Family, that's their prerogative but its also the prerogative of the Royal Family to limit access of its key members to just official photo ops and that goes for the new royal baby that's on the way

Mmmm we use to live in that area and the church at Englefield is not the local church for the Middletons it is a good 15 minute drive from Buckleberry. Englefield village is tiny and the majority of it belonged to the Englefield Estate (google it -it's a stunning place) which the local mp owns. I have a feeling the Middletons might be friends of his and used this church to keep out of the limelight. It really isn't an obvious choice which means they were probably followed there.

You're not the first person that has commented on this fact, so apparently some effort was made to attend a Christmas Day service at a church that was not located in Bucklebury. So yes, likely they were followed from the Middleton residence.

Christmas Day church service is important not only to HM, but to the BRF. The Queen has sworn to be 'defender of the faith'; at Sandringham the Royals go to church twice on Christmas Day; together William and Kate wrote a prayer for their wedding and so forth.

Therefore to suggest that William & Kate not attend a church service on Christmas Day, merely so that their photos are not taken is unreasonable. William and Kate are entitled to worship; they asked in advance for privacy; they made an effort to go to a church that the Middletons do not normally go to; and apparently Kate made an effort to attend church when she was not feeling well.

The tradition of going to Sandringham for Christmas is very likely to change when Charles becomes King. Not sure how some of the Royals will feel, but it is likely that Andrew and his daughters (in light of the fact that Charles apparently plans to streamline the BRF and marginalize them further, even disenfranchise them from the Royal family) will not be so happy to attend Sandringham for Christmas Day when Charles is King.

Furthermore, if Charles lives as long as HM has done so far, William would likely be at least in his 50's, if and when he becomes King. So there are many years between now and when William might become King in which Christmas traditions in the BRF will change beyond all recognition of what we know about today.

If the media takes the stance that any time any of the Royals are outside of their own home (or anyone's home, I suppose) or their own front lawn, they're fair game to be photographed ... why, before we knew it, they would be photographing them from over a half-mile away with long-range telephoto lenses.

Are you aware, that according to basic human rights, you own the right of your picture, voice etc.?; Is it because of the Paris Hiltons and Kadashians of this world, because they love every opportunity to be photographed, that it has become common opinion to think, everybody is public property?
.

I know this is off topic but you post reminds me of my regret that there is a huge difference in the privacy laws in Europe v the US. I wish our laws were closer to yours. We don't have the right to our image when in public nor do we have the right to control info about ourselves outside of finances, health, education, and believe it or not, video rentals.

I'm one of the first people to agree on the royal family's privacy. I think despite them being royal, they are entitled to some privacy and the media should respect it. So I would understand the complaint if the photographers took intrusive pictures of the Cambridges and Middletons at their home on Christmas or any other day.

From what I understand, the Cambridges and Middleton family privacy wasn't violated but was respected. The DM article said the police cleared the way so the photographers could get good pictures, so I'm guess the royal couple and Middleton family knew their pictures would at least be taken outside the church. I just think they at least expected that to happen.

Even the royal family's privacy is being respected. No pictures are being produced of them on the Sandringham estate. The only pictures of them that is produced is them attending church on Christmas. I think the Cambridges should've known their pictures would be taken at church and shouldn've complained about it.

They didn't complain about the pictures that was taken of Catherine and her family when they attended church in 2010. This was after the engagement.

No doubt William & Catherine privacy should be respected and I think the media and us all have to respect that no matter what. I just think complaining about these little church pictures (which was taken out in public) is a little too much. I just think they should have known their pictures would be taken outside the church. Pictures of them on the Middleton estate walking the dogs or anything else would've been crossing the intrusion line.

I'm actually glad we got pictures of them attending church as a family. May not have been a lot of pictures but the little that we saw was nice.

IMHO even though it is a public place of worship, it comes with the restrictions that it is otherwise located on a private property. Which means no pictures.

On a sidenote: I found it interesting that the security officers obviously helped the photographer by moving their car(s). Has someone forgotten to inform them about the no-picture-policy? I only hope that these officers won't be reprimanded for their behaviour.

I can understand the family's desire to be out of the public eye (via press coverage). When Harry and William were small, Diana and Charles had cut a deal with the press that kept the boys form being hounded - and let them have slightly more normal childhoods.
The intent with Catherine is probably much the same. She is pregnant for the first time, has had to be hospitalized in her first trimester, is carrying the third in line to the throne and I am sure she is feeling a lot of pressure, illness and not some small degree of fear about things. Beyond that, I would not want photogs hovering and waiting to capture the moment when I was violently taken with nausea, while in public. Because we all know that that is the picture they all want to get.
That said, the DM opinion piece is correct, that in this age of cell phones with cameras and social media, that it makes little difference if the press is not there - in public spaces SOMEONE will catch the opportunity, take pics and post them to Twitter, Facebook or wherever. So I completely understand the DM's frustration at the naive view that stopping the press will stop the pictures.
And I can't believe that I am agreeing with the DM - because, it is the DM.

Its not about stopping all pictures. Its about having boundaries. Does the press publish photos of Prime Minister Cameron and his wife leaving church on Christmas Day? No, because there was no public interest and even though the PM is a public figure, he also deserves privacy.

If people want the royals to turn into a reality show, then that's what they'll get but I hope the Cambridges release just 1 photo of their baby and no official photo ops until the princess/ss is 18 years old.

If the Daily Mail thinks it has the moral high ground, then don't take down the photos, pretty simple.

If the press believes its their constitutional right to photograph members of the Royal Family any time it wants except behind close doors, then do it but don't take down the photos and then complain about it.

Britain has a free press and the royals don't control it but obviously the DM knew it broke its own agreement and took down the photos

On a sidenote: I found it interesting that the security officers obviously helped the photographer by moving their car(s). Has someone forgotten to inform them about the no-picture-policy? I only hope that these officers won't be reprimanded for their behaviour.

Yes, I found this very interesting too. But it has generally been established from Harry's and Kate's scandals that PPOs do not deal with photographers or people holding cameras, so I guess they will not get into trouble over this matter. What surprises me is the fact that the police set up a press area near the church. Seems like there has been a breakdown of communications between WK's office, the PPOs and the local police.

If the Daily Mail thinks it has the moral high ground, then don't take down the photos, pretty simple.

If the press believes its their constitutional right to photograph members of the Royal Family any time it wants except behind close doors, then do it but don't take down the photos and then complain about it.

Britain has a free press and the royals don't control it but obviously the DM knew it broke its own agreement and took down the photos

I agree. Yesterday when the DM printed the pictures, no other main stream media outlet did that, not even the Daily Telegraph which lifts royal stories from the DM all the time. So the only paper that had to drop the pix was the DM so they are the only paper who now have to cover their tracks by shifting the blame back onto the royals. This is the DM at its most manipulative, cynical best. Don't fall for it.

__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,